The Daily Render by Nikolas R. Schillerhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog
A Digital Scrapbook for the Past, Present, and FutureWed, 02 Aug 2017 16:58:50 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.9COMPLEX MAGAZINE: How to Organize A Pro-Cannabis Demonstration With Over 4,200 Free Jointshttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/22/8202/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/22/8202/#respondMon, 23 Jan 2017 01:41:17 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=8202My interview is at about 3:45 into the video:

Washington D.C. was alight with protests and demonstrations Friday afternoon—both literally and figuratively. While thousands protested the official swearing-in of President Donald Trump—a ceremony that included a speech plagiarized from a comic book villain—a demonstration of another kind took to the streets: one of nonpartisan weed enthusiasts.

The D.C. Cannabis Coalition (DCMJ), co-founded in 2013 by Adam Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller, called its event #Trump420, and rolled 4,200 joints (yes, that’s 4-2-0-0) to pass out to weed enthusiasts of every political affiliation. DCMJ describes itself as “a community group fighting for equal rights for DC cannabis users, growers, and their families,” and used Trump’s inauguration as an opportunity to raise awareness about its initiatives. Weed possession was legalized in Washington D.C. in 2015 (though you still can’t legally buy it), but Eidinger and Schiller are continuing to fight to destigmatize weed communities and advocate for less restrictive legalization policies.

DCMJ invited Complex to come hang with them while they rolled 4,200 joints from their headquarters, as well as on Friday for their official demonstration, which was attended by Trump supporters and protesters alike. Check out the best of the reefer madness below.

“He’s said that good people don’t smoke marijuana,” Mr. Schiller said of Mr. Sessions, referring to comments the Alabama senator made in April. “We found that to be insulting to the millions of Americans that do.”

Marijuana Group Passes Out Free Joints for Trump’s Inauguration

By Jonah Engel Bromwich, January 20, 2017

Don’t be surprised if, shortly after Donald J. Trump begins his inaugural address on Friday, tiny streams of smoke begin to rise from the crowd.

A marijuana advocacy group said it was giving away approximately 8,000 free joints on Friday. Early in the morning, hundreds were lined up in Dupont Circle in northwest Washington, where the cigarettes were being handed out.

The protest was planned by DCMJ, which was founded in 2013 in a successful effort to change laws regulating the drug in Washington. The group made its plan, to smoke at least 4,200 joints, known well in advance.

In a phone interview Friday morning, Nikolas Schiller, a founder of the group, estimated that DCMJ members had rolled about 8,000 joints for the protest. The number was only an approximation, he said, adding that many volunteers had brought their own marijuana.

It has been legal to possess small amounts of marijuana in Washington since 2015, but illegal to smoke it or ingest it in public spaces. Mr. Schiller said that protesters were “encouraged to light them up if they want to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience.”

Mr. Schiller said it will be “up to the actual individuals” to decide whether and when to smoke the joints, but the group had suggested they begin at about four minutes and 20 seconds into Mr. Trump’s inaugural address.

The protest was not intended to be a statement against the new president himself. But Mr. Schiller said it was “definitely true” that the group was protesting the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general, noting that the group was concerned Mr. Sessions would plan raids on marijuana dispensaries and cultivation centers.

“He’s said that good people don’t smoke marijuana,” Mr. Schiller said of Mr. Sessions, referring to comments the Alabama senator made in April. “We found that to be insulting to the millions of Americans that do.”

Source: New York Times
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/20/8452/feed/0Fox 5 DC: Pro-pot protesters prep for Inauguration Dayhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/18/8302/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/18/8302/#respondThu, 19 Jan 2017 03:13:27 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=8302Today I was live at 5:03pm on DC Fox 5:

WASHINGTON – A range of groups are planning protests in support of various causes on inauguration day including an organization of pro-pot activists.

DCMJ, a community group fighting for equal rights for DC cannabis users, growers, and their families, plan to show their support of marijuana legalization by handing out free weed and lighting up during the inauguration.

The group has invited individuals who would like to participate to gather on the west side of Dupont Circle at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, January 20, and then they will head down to the National Mall at 10:00 a.m. They plan to hand out 4,200 joints of legally grown cannabis, and ask that everyone light up at four minutes and 20 seconds into President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration speech.

Nikola Schiller, the co-founder of DCMJ, says the whole point of the event is to bring awareness to cannabis reform, “our blunt point that we are trying to make is that cannabis reform needs to happen now. We want the Trump administration to fully legalize cannabis throughout the United States and the District of Columbia. We’re afraid that come next week all the states that are legalized could have their doors broken down, we could have states like Colorado and California have all their industries be shut down stores raided homes destroyed and we don’t want that to happen.”

After taking a nearly 6 year break, I bought an old computer that ran Mac OS X 10.6, installed the old software, and now resuming making my renderings. This is my first rendering of the fine state of Connecticut.

“We have come to assume Senator Sessions will overturn the will of more than 70% of the voters in the District of Columbia that voted for full legalization if made Attorney General,” according to a letter sent to legislators in Congress by DCMJ co-founders Adam Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller.

An advocacy group for pot is urging Senators to reject the nomination of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions to serve the next U.S. Attorney General.

The group, DCMJ.org, led the successful campaign in 2016 to legalize marijuana in the District of Columbia and is now targeting Sessions who they say is not friendly to legal marijuana.

“We have come to assume Senator Sessions will overturn the will of more than 70% of the voters in the District of Columbia that voted for full legalization if made Attorney General,” according to a letter sent to legislators in Congress by DCMJ co-founders Adam Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller. “He will be empowered to ignore the 60% of Americans who support legal cannabis or the more than 80% of U.S. citizens, who support legalizing cannabis for medical purposes.”

DCMJ insists that legalizing pot has proven to be a jobs creator and reversing the recent gains for legalization will impact the economies of several states. Further, they say, overturning any of the pro-pot statutes across the country “disproportionately impacts minorities” and also hurts critically ill patients who use cannabis for pain relief.

Claiming that “the vast majority of Americans” agree with legalizing pot, the group charges that Sessions has ideas that are “harmful, racially biased, costly, outdated, ineffective, and counterintuitive to economic growth and the nation’s homeland security efforts.”

“We will use all practical means to fight the threat Sessions poses to overturn the will of the voters, ignore science and medical professionals and put black market marijuana back in the hands of international organized crime rings,” Eidinger said in a press release.

During a recent Senate panel on the public impact of changing marijuana laws across the country, Sessions noted that “marijuana is very dangerous,” and said the country will regret legalizing the drug. Sessions added:

“We need grown-ups in charge in Washington saying marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought to be minimized, that it is in fact a very real danger. You can see the accidents, traffic deaths related to marijuana. And you’ll see cocaine and heroin increase more than it would have, I think.”

DCMJ plans a protest for Trump’s oath of office ceremony on January 20. The group plans to parade toward the National Mall handing out 4,200 joints of legally grown cannabis along the way. They intend to all light up among the inauguration crowd at 4 minutes and 20 seconds into President Trump’s speech.

They say they will cancel their protest only if Donald Trump comes out in support of their cause.

Source: Breitbart
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/04/8362/feed/0Snopes: 4,200 Free Joints to Be Given Away Before Trump’s Inaugurationhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/04/8332/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2017/01/04/8332/#respondThu, 05 Jan 2017 02:22:30 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=8332
On 29 December 2016, the Washington, DC, based pro-legalization group known as DCMJ posted an invitation for an event called “#Trump420” on their web site:

You are cordially invited to join DCMJ for the inaugural #Trump420 taking place on January 20, 2017 in Washington, DC!

We will gather on the west side of Dupont Circle at 8am for coffee & tea and parade down to the National Mall at 10am. Along the way we’ll hand out 4,200 joints of legally grown cannabis! At 4 minutes and 20 seconds into President Trump’s speech we’ll light up! (unless President Trump comes out now in support of full cannabis legalization in all 50 States and DC!)

We legalized cannabis in Washington, DC and we are not going to let anyone take that away from us! This is an outreach opportunity to show President Trump’s supporters we are the marijuana majority! Join us for smokin’ fun time!

Possession of up to two ounces of marijuana is legal in the District of Columbia, thanks to the passage of Ballot Initiative 71, a campaign that was headed by the DCMJ in 2014. What is not legal, however, in D.C. is purchasing or selling marijuana. In this respect, the only legal way to distribute marijuana to large groups of people in D.C. is to give it away free of charge.

Merely smoking a joint on private D.C. land would be legal, DCMJ founder Adam Eidinger explained to USA Today, but not on federal land such as the National Mall, where the protest is scheduled to occur:

We are going to tell them that if they smoke on federal property, they are risking arrest. But, that’s a form of civil disobedience […] they are risking arrest, but it’s a protest and you know what, the National Mall is a place for protest.

Eidinger stated that #Trump420 was not intended to be disruptive or explicitly anti-Trump. When we asked what success would look like for the #Trump420 event, DCMJ co-founder Nikolas Schiller provided us with this statement:

A successful #Trump420 is to have the President come out in support of full legalization in all states, territories, and the District of Columbia. While he has said in the past that cannabis should be left up to the states, DC is not a state, therefore we are concerned that DC could be targeted by the incoming AG. We want President Trump to instruct [Jeff] Sessions to not use taxpayer dollars enforcing cannabis laws that the majority of Americans want changed. One way to Make America Great Again is to acknowledge the failure of the war on drugs and work toward passing legislation (or through executive order) that removes cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and allows states to implement their own laws.

Although DCMJ has stated they are not anti-Trump, they have been highly critical of President-elect Trump’s choice of Jeff Sessions, who is staunchly anti-legalization, for Attorney General and have been lobbying members of Congress against confirming him for that position, Schiller told us:

Yesterday we dropped off cannabis-related sample questions for Senator Sessions to all the Senators on the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the hopes that they will be asked at his confirmation hearing next week. We are concerned that Senator Sessions as the AG will roll back the reforms we’ve worked so hard to make and plan on attending the hearing.

How long it will take the group to distribute 4,200 free joints is unknown, but it is worth noting that organizers of one of the largest scheduled Inauguration Day protests, the Women’s March on Washington, estimate that around 200,000 people will show up for their event alone.

“The main thing is to show that cannabis reform is not a partisan issue,” Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DCMJ, told The Independent.”

Cannabis activists to hand out thousands of free joints at Donald Trump’s inauguration

The activists want Mr Trump to support federal legislation of marijuana

Kimberley Richards | New York | Wednesday 4 January 2017 18:03 GMT

As President-elect Donald Trump delivers his inaugural address, groups of activists plan to hand out joints to those listening – and light up.

The group known as DCMJ intends to distribute thousands of joints of marijuana on Inauguration Day – for free – as part of a campaign to push for the federal legalisation of pot.

The group plans to start handing out joints at 8am January 20 on the west side of Dupont Circle in the nation’s capital, part of the city where recreational marijuana is legal. Then, marchers will walk to the National Mall where the real protest will begin.

The plan is to light up on the Mall at precisely four minutes and twenty seconds into Mr Trump’s inaugural address, a time chosen to symbolise April 20 – or 4/20 on American calendars – which is dubbed National Weed Day, and is celebrated by many across the United States.

DCMJ, a Washington.-based group which focuses on marijuana laws and “equal rights for DC cannabis users, growers, and their families,” is organising the event with the mission to build awareness on marijuana reform in the wake of the forthcoming Trump administration.

“The main thing is to show that cannabis reform is not a partisan issue,” Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DCMJ, told The Independent.

“This is not a protest against Trump at all. It’s an awareness building activity. We’re going to hand out joints. It doesn’t matter what political affiliation you are.”

The organisers will meet with other participants near Dupont Circle for coffee and tea, followed by a walk to the National Mall. But with conflicting DC and federal laws concerning the possession and recreational use of marijuana, the group has to juggle the complications created by the presence of both federal and city laws.

In February 2015, the District of Columbia, passed Initiative 71 which allowed legal possession of small amounts of marijuana with certain restrictions.

Individuals aged 21 and older can possess two ounces or less of marijuana, and use it on private property. But since a significant amount of DC is federal land, the laws surrounding marijuana possession can get tricky.

Initiative 71 does not affect federal law, therefore possessing any amount of marijuana on federal land is still illegal.

The DCMJ has prepared for this. The organisers will gather on the west side of Dupont Circle (avoiding federal land) to distribute 4,200 joints of marijuana to participants.

They also plan to take other precautions with plans to card individuals receiving a free joint to ensure they are 21 years old or older.

Mr Schiller said each joint will have up to one gram of cannabis in order to stay in line with DC’s guideline that an individual can transfer up to one ounce or less of marijuana to another person.

The protest aspect will play out when the group plans to light up at the National Mall during Trump’s inaugural speech.

But Mr Schiller said the bigger point of the protest was to encourage Mr Trump to make his plans surrounding marijuana reform clear – and for him to take action to push for marijuana legalisation on a federal level. Marijuana is listed as a DEA Schedule 1 drug, along with LSD.

He said the DCMJ is particularly concerned about Mr Trump’s pick for Attorney General, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, who said: “Marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalised.”

The Obama administration has looked the other way as more than a dozen states enacted medical marijuana laws and five jurisdictions legalized the drug for recreational use, but when faced with what was likely its final chance during President Obama’s tenure to loosen federal restrictions on the medicinal use of the drug, the administration has chosen to puff, puff, pass.

The Drug Enforcement Administration on Thursday denied requests to change the legal classification of marijuana, shooting down advocates’ latest push to get the drug federally approved for medical purposes.

DEA acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg wrote in the announcement that an evaluation by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the drug “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment” and “a high potential for abuse.”

“If the scientific understanding about marijuana changes — and it could change — the decision could change,” Mr. Rosenberg wrote in a letter to petitioners. “It certainly would be odd to rely on science when it suits us and ignore it otherwise.”

Issued less than six months before Mr. Obama’s term ends, the DEA decision leaves the federal government at odds with roughly half of states that have approved marijuana for medical use and disappoints advocates who hoped its rescheduling would make it easier to study potential benefits of the drug.

Tom Angell, chairman of the Marijuana Majority, said the decision was a missed opportunity for an administration that had signaled a willingness for reform.

“President Obama always said he would let science — and not ideology — dictate policy, but in this case his administration is upholding a failed drug war approach instead of looking at real, existing evidence that marijuana has medical value,” Mr. Angell said.
\
Mr. Obama gave advocates hope that he might take action to downgrade the drug’s classification when he said he didn’t think marijuana was more dangerous than alcohol.

Instead, the Justice Department has refrained from challenging state laws that allow for medical or recreational marijuana use as long as their state regulatory systems follow certain guidelines.
The hands-off approach has given the marijuana industry room to grow and thrive, said Taylor West, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association.

Fifteen of 25 states that have approved medical marijuana have done so since Mr. Obama took office in 2008. Meanwhile, four states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana use.

“It’s not as if we haven’t seen tremendous progress in these eight years,” Ms. West said. “It’s a far cry from the early years of the administration when medical dispensaries were regularly getting raided and patients getting arrested.”

But she lamented the hurdles the cannabis industry faces when the federal government continues to view marijuana as illegal, particularly when it comes to banking regulations that have driven many in the business to stick to cash transactions.

“It’s not OK for a $7 billion industry to continue to have to operate in limbo,” Ms. West said.
Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is a Schedule I drug — as are heroin, LSD and Ecstasy. The DEA concluded it could not downgrade marijuana from its Schedule I classification, considered the most dangerous class of drugs, for medical use because the HHS evaluation found “the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.”

A reclassification as a Schedule 2 drug — the only scheduling option the DEA said it had in order to comply with international treaties — wouldn’t have legalized the medical use of marijuana, but advocates said the highly symbolic move would have placed it in a less tightly regulated class of drugs and could have opened the door to additional avenues of research for medical purposes.
The DEA did relax regulations that make it easier for institutions to grow marijuana for scientific research. The University of Mississippi had been the only facility in the United States authorized to grow pot for research.

Though more than half of Americans now believe that marijuana should be legal, plenty were pleased by the DEA’s decision. Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, said rescheduling marijuana would have been irresponsible.

“The facts show that marijuana continues to be the most frequently used and abused illicit drug in the nation,” Ms. Fay said. “To reschedule this drug for ‘medical purposes’ without the legitimate research to back it up would be fraudulent and reckless.”

Drug policy reform advocates have long questioned how involved the White House would be on the issue of marijuana rescheduling.

“And I think the answer is not very much,” said Michael Collins, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “They left this to the DEA to decide, and that’s why we are where we are. If the White House had been more involved in this, I think the answer would have been a different one.”

A group of D.C. activists planned to protest the announcement Thursday night by singing songs out of tune outside the White House to symbolize how “the Obama administration and DEA are tone-deaf to cannabis reform,” said organizer Nikolas Schiller.

“If the Obama administration can sit by idly and not doing anything, that’s a lack of leadership,” said Mr. Schiller, a co-founder of DCMJ, the organization responsible for getting marijuana legalization on the ballot in the District in 2014.

As Americans go to the polls to elect the next president in November, voters in five states are set to decide on legalization of recreational marijuana. With the likely expansion of the marijuana industry in several of those states, advocates wish federal policy changes could have been locked down before the election.

Mr. Angell believes both Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump have said enough publicly about respecting state marijuana laws that it would be politically difficult for either to move away from that stance. But he notes the Justice Department guidelines about respecting state laws are just that — guidelines.

“They are not set in stone,” he said. “The next president could change that on a whim, and that’s concerning.”

With the rescheduling effort shot down by the DEA, advocates say they will look to Congress to tap into the momentum of the states.

“We want to make sure all candidates are for full-legalization of cannabis,” said Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DCMJ.org, an activist group that helped get cannabis decriminalized in Washington, D.C.

Hundreds of demonstrators on Monday marched from City Hall to the Wells Fargo Center – site of the Democratic National Convention – with a message calling for the legalization of marijuana.

In a bit of synchronicity, the pro-pot group was joined by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders at City Hall, melding together to create one large party moving down Broad Street.

Originally planned to begin before noon, the march’s start time repeatedly was moved back as the demonstrators continued to gather at City Hall, all braving the oppressive city heat, clocking in at more than 95 degrees at 1:30 p.m.

Also joining the march were two 51-foot inflatable joints, intended to show the delegates in town that the participants support the decriminalization of cannabis.

“We want to make sure all candidates are for full-legalization of cannabis,” said Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DCMJ.org, an activist group that helped get cannabis decriminalized in Washington, D.C.

Schiller said his group donated inflatable joint to PhillyNORML, the local pro-cannabis legalization organization, to help their fight for legalization.

For Monday’s protest march, PhillyNORML had the words “Legalize. Berned by the DNC” written on their 51-foot long prop – the length representative of Washington, D.C.,. as the 51st state. The second 51-foot joint belonged to another marijuana legalization group from New York and read “Legalize Cannabis Now,” joined the march.

“We’ve got a lot of East Coast unity,” Schiller said.

According to Philadelphia cannabis legalization activist Nikki Allen Poe, the march was intended to demonstrate to the Democratic delegates in town for the convention that there is a wellspring of support for the legalization of cannabis.

“We want cannabis de-scheduled,” he said.

Presently the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration classifies cannabis as a “Schedule 1” substance with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. But, Poe said that description needs to be changed, as 25 states – including Pennsylvania – have “directly contradicted federal law” and permitted the use of medical marijuana.

“We need to de-schedule cannabis so that the medical benefits of cannabis can be studied by people in lab coats, instead of by people in dreadlocks,” he said.

Poe noted that the police presence at City Hall had been polite and friendly. He had met last week with police representatives to discuss the cannabis legalization demonstration plans during the DNC, he said, and law enforcement officials seemed more welcoming of cannabis users than he had ever seen in the past.

“Cannabis reform is bringing the police and the people together,” Poe said. “They realize that we just want to be a normal part of society.”

SEPTA Police Chief Thomas J. Nestel III, on hand with a cadre of officers monitoring marijuana activists, watched as marchers peacefully expressed their First Amendment rights made for an enjoyable day. As of about 1:30 p.m., police had made no arrests and instead were busy making sure demonstrators were safe from traffic as they gathered around City Hall.

“I don’t think there’s tension here. I think there’s just a lot of energy,” he said.

Nestel politely stopped an interview with this reporter to tend to a man suffering symptoms caused by the heat – the first he had seen that day. He reminded participants in the march to stay hydrated.

“For us, this is about making sure these protesters are safe,” Nestel said. “We want to make sure everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but we don’t want that to turn into violence.”

Chris Goldstein of PhillyNORML said that he felt his organization and the Sanders’ supporters could help each other. Sanders supported decriminalization of cannabis – even presented a bill in the senate that would allow states the ability to decide if the drug would be legalized in their own state.

“We believe that they should adopt Bernie Sanders platform,” said Goldstein of all political candidates.

“We hope people see that this isn’t a protest. Instead, we are cheering (politicians who support legalization of marijuana) on,” he said. “(Legalization) is getting closer and closer. We have a real chance of it.”

Anya Harjung, of Delaware, who attended the rally as a Sanders supporter said she wanted to show her support for the Vermont senator, and Independent presidential candidate Jill Stein, following the recent release of leaked Democratic National Committee emails that appear to show the party kneecapped the Sanders’ campaign.

“I hope we can swing some of these delegates away from Hillary and toward Bernie or Jill Stein,” she said. “They support some ideas that are so radical, that (Democratic party’s leaders aren’t ready for it.”

To Shell Ievoli, of POW420, an pot activist group working to get individuals who are currently incarcerated for crimes involving marijuana out of prison, the march will hopefully show that, even as cannabis is slowly becoming decriminalized in many states, there are thousands of people in prison –even in areas where marijuana is now legal.

“If it’s decriminalized, why are there still people in jail,” Ievoli said.

She said she supports returning non-violent offenders of crimes related to cannabis to society, pointing out that the drug has “less toxins than cucumbers.”

Thirty minutes after the meeting began, Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DC Marijuana Justice, were done and outside the White House. They held a banner that read “President Obama, We need a higher level meeting.”

About that ‘bud summit’ at the White House — pot activists are still waiting

It took a pot-smoking protest outside the White House, but on Monday, advocates for marijuana legalization were set for a historic face-to-face meeting with the Obama administration about easing laws governing the drug.

Except, it wasn’t.

Leaders of the ballot-measure fight that legalized marijuana in the nation’s capital said they were granted a White House meeting, but it was with two junior-level staffers in President Obama’s Office of National Drug Control Policy.

There was no presidential entourage, no promises of more meetings to come. In fact, there was no visit to the White House proper, but a mostly empty conference room in an adjacent building.

“They didn’t say a lot; they took notes, maybe four pages’ worth,” said Adam Eidinger, the face of the D.C. marijuana movement, who dressed up for the visit in a black suit with a black-and-green marijuana leaf tie. “We asked questions, but they didn’t answer. .?.?. They nodded a lot. I think they understood us.”

Obama said in January that reforming marijuana laws is not on his agenda in his final year in office.

But activists’ hopes have been raised by a combination of factors: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has made legalizing pot a plank of his surprisingly successful run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Meanwhile, a petition by Democratic governors has led the Drug Enforcement Administration to say it will decide by July whether to remove marijuana from the nation’s list of most dangerous drugs.

Eidinger and other activists said they hoped Monday’s meeting might begin a conversation about marijuana reform that could provide cover to likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to continue work should she win the election in November.

Eidinger also tried to guilt and embarrass Obama into action. Fliers announcing the mass pot-smoking event outside the White House said the event was held not on April 20, the typical national day of action over marijuana policy, but earlier because of the president.

“Due to popular demand, we’re rescheduling 4/20 this year to 4/2 because Obama’s been a BIG ZERO on cannabis reform,” said the fliers.

In Eidinger’s last letter to Obama administration, he also offered to call off the spectacle if the president agreed to sit down or “bud summit” with marijuana advocates.

“As a former cannabis (and current?) user, you know firsthand that cannabis does not belong in the Controlled Substances Act,” Eidinger wrote.

But on Monday, both sides characterized the meeting as no more than a perfunctory listening session — and partly for good reason.

Since the meeting was with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the administration officials present are not able to advocate for reclassifying marijuana thanks to funding restrictions imposed by Congress.

In a statement, a spokesman for the office played down Monday’s meeting:

“Over the years, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has met with numerous organizations representing varied perspectives on drug policy. As laid out in the National Drug Control Strategy, the Administration’s drug policy continues to focus on a balanced public health and public safety approach to reduce drug use and its consequences.”

Thirty minutes after the meeting began, Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DC Marijuana Justice, were done and outside the White House. They held a banner that read “President Obama, We need a higher level meeting.”

Beginning July 17, 2014, the day the D.C. Council’s decriminalization law went into effect, it stopped being a criminal offense to have cannabis clubs in the District. It wasn’t a criminal offense to have private events, where the public is not invited and cannabis could be used behind closed doors. The decriminalization law says that the smell of cannabis is not probable cause for police action. Private cannabis clubs could have been created before Initiative 71 was voted on, but they weren’t.

By rubber-stamping the mayor’s ban, the council inadvertently created the “smokeasy,” a private residence where adults consume cannabis together. Is this the “unintended consequence” of poorly crafted emergency legislation? It’s a hallmark of poor governance to enact laws to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. By banning cannabis-using adults from gathering at private venues, the council created a problem.

We look forward to working with the mayor and the D.C. Council on fixing the ban so all adults have access to safe places outside their homes to use cannabis responsibly.

Adam Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller, WashingtonThe writers are founders of DCMJ and authors of Initiative 71.

On Day 1 of legalization, Bowser submits bill to prevent ‘pot clubs’

D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser on Thursday sent emergency legislation to the D.C. Council to prohibit nightclubs, private membership clubs and virtually any other city-registered business from providing a venue for social marijuana smoking.

The legislation is an attempt to rein in one aspect of the city’s newly enacted marijuana legalization law that Bowser (D) has said could produce confusion — and, potentially, more public use of the drug then she believes was intended under the ballot measure approved by voters.

The law allows those 21 or over to possess up to two ounces of marijuana. But Congress blocked the city from adopting laws to regulate buying and selling — meaning that those activities are still illegal. And current laws that ban smoking pot outdoors or in public places remain in effect.

Some advocates for legalization said the language about whether D.C. businesses could close for private events and allow marijuana smoking was vague. They also said the initiative could allow the formation of “cannabis clubs,” like those prevalent in Spain, which offer membership fees and access to the drug.

Bowser’s legislation seeks to make sure none of that happens, mostly by defining broadly the public space where smoking will remain prohibited. The bill uses the same definition that is part of the city’s 2014 decriminalization law: anywhere the “public is invited.”

It says public space includes “any building, facility, or premise used to operate by an organization or association for .?.?. a fraternal, social, educational or recreational purpose.”

The legislation, which several council members have said they are inclined to support, would give the mayor the power to revoke the business license, certificate of occupancy and other city permit of any business where marijuana is smoked or consumed. If approved by the council, which meets next on Tuesday, it would take effect immediately.

Nikolas Schiller, spokesman for the D.C. Cannabis Campaign, questioned whether the proposed legislation was overly broad and added that the campaign’s attorneys would review it.

In the meantime, the District’s first day as a jurisdiction where pot is legal passed fairly quietly, although with moments of quirky drama.

Adam Eidinger, chairman of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign, invited reporters to his campaign headquarters to watch him plant marijuana seeds and smoke.

“It feels great. It feels like freedom,” Eidinger said as he legally inhaled and exhaled. He declined to specify how he acquired the marijuana that filled the joint he was smoking other than to say it was a gift from friends.

The District’s law allows residents to grow up to six marijuana plants at home — three mature ones at a time. Eidinger placed the seeds for his six plants in front of the cameras.

“I kind of feel like the Martha Stewart of marijuana,” he said. “Planting a seed is a symbolic act. I hope these seeds will last.”

Despite the many restrictions included in the law, police in the District reported no arrests Thursday of people smoking in public or trying to buy the drug.

“No arrests for any marijuana-type charges today,” said Lt. Sean Conboy, a D.C. police spokesman. U.S. Park Police, responsible for the federal parkland that makes up a quarter of the District’s real estate, also reported no arrests, and police in several Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions bordering the District reported no impact on operations.

“It doesn’t change the way we do business,” said Crystal Nosal, an Alexandria police spokeswoman. “No laws in Virginia have changed.”

Schiller, the Cannabis Campaign spokesman, said organizers of the successful D.C. ballot measure chose not to hold a public party to celebrate their victory for fear of drawing potentially negative media attention.

“A long time ago, we decided there would be no large events with people smoking,” Schiller said. “It was one of those quiet victories to be celebrated in back yards and in living rooms.”

A tweet by the campaign urged D.C. residents to enjoy marijuana responsibly and respect the law’s provisions that prohibit smoking in public. “Cannabis is officially legal in the District of Columbia. A big thank u to everyone who helped make history. Celebrate responsibly! #i71,” it read.

Source: Washington Post
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2015/02/26/8682/feed/0Dusting off the cobwebs that have collected on NikolasSchiller.comhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2015/01/25/7843/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2015/01/25/7843/#respondMon, 26 Jan 2015 00:05:27 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7843These are some of the questions I was curious about during my blogging sabbatical:

What happens when a website goes cold?

Which archived entries will become the most popular?

How will idleness affect search engine algorithms?

What will the daily traffic be on this cobweb?

I never formally gave up blogging here. Instead, I simply added the text “i’m currently on daily blogging sabbatical, but i’ll be back very soon.” to the top of the page in the spring of 2011.

I essentially created a digital snapshot-in-time. Looking back at the chronological edit archive, I added a few entries in the spring 2012 & backdated them to the summer 2011, but from then on, it’s been intentionally silent on this website. I was curious about what would happen when this website was paused.

Most websites go offline, but few go on pause. It’s much easier to start a free blog on Tumblr than it is to have your own domain name, purchase a website hosting package, install the content management system, and keep everything running smoothly. Pause also costs money, and in my case, to the tune of hundreds of dollars a year. From dozens of domain names to the hosting package that keeps all the websites running, keeping my small stake of land on the World Wide Web has been both time-consuming and expensive. But it has also been quite rewarding to have this digital time capsule alive and online, albeit collecting dust.

Over the last few years much of my attention has gone to updating different websites that I was paid to manage. This made the intentional neglect of this website much easier to handle. I also never set a specific date that I would return because I didn’t want to be arbitrarily pressured to end my blogging sabbatical.

In lieu of posting new content here, I’ve also kept a secondary scrapbook during these silent years that includes some of my more memorable accomplishments, creations, and endeavors. Over the coming days & weeks I plan to regularly add new entries to the archives in order reflect what has transpired over the last few years. Concurrently, I also plan on recoding the layout of this website because it’s in desperate need of a makeover.

Challenge to D.C. pot initiative in spending bill

NICOLE GAUDIANO, USA TODAY 5:20 p.m. EST December 10, 2014

A measure pushed by Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland challenging the District of Columbia vote legalizing small amounts of marijuana is included in a must-pass federal spending bill Congress is taking up this week.

The measure, released Tuesday night, would prohibit using federal or District money to enact laws or rules to legalize — or reduce penalties for — possessing or distributing marijuana for recreational purposes.

Harris’ staff believes the measure would block the city’s Nov. 4-passed ballot initiative, which they say won’t be enacted until a congressional 30-day review period ends. All D.C.-passed laws must be sent to Congress for review and approval.

The staff members say it’s conceivable that the measure, if approved, will bar D.C. from even submitting the initiative to Congress for review, because that would require spending local money.

“Numerous studies show the negative impact regular recreational marijuana use has on the developing brain and on future economic opportunities for those who use this illegal drug,” Harris said in a statement. “I am glad Congress is going to, in a bipartisan way, uphold federal law to protect our youth by preventing legalization in Washington, D.C.”

Unlike a Harris measure that passed the House in July, this new version wouldn’t block the District from “carrying out” enacted marijuana policies, she said. She argues that the marijuana initiative could be considered enacted when it passed with the support of more than two-thirds of District voters, and doesn’t require rules for implementation.

“Therefore, it can be argued that the legalization of small amounts of marijuana can proceed,” Norton said in a statement.

Harris also has tried to block a separate D.C. law that decriminalizes marijuana, imposing a civil fine of $25 and no criminal penalty for possessing a small amount. Harris’ staff doesn’t expect the provision in the federal spending bill to affect that law because it was enacted in July.

Marijuana legalization activists and proponents of D.C. home rule have protested at Harris’ office and encouraged a boycott of Maryland vacation destinations. On Tuesday, some activists interrupted Harris as he delivered a speech on the issue at the Heritage Foundation. Some carried signs saying Harris wants marijuana users in jail.

“We don’t want members of Congress to overturn our election,” said Nikolas Schiller, a spokesman for the DC Cannabis Campaign.

“I can’t tell you how many times I heard ‘I’m gonna vote for it, but I will not sign it.’ ‘No, I can’t vote for it, I’m a teacher, I’m a federal worker, I’m a government contractor, ‘I’ll lose my job.’?” Eidinger said.

Nikolas Schiller, another top campaign organizer, said he came to see it as a “Snowden factor.” He said, “People don’t want to be put on some government list.”

Odds are increasing that D.C. will vote on legalizing marijuana — despite Congress

Sixteen years ago, D.C. activists gathered signatures to let voters decide if the District should be among the first in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. Then Congress stepped in, and city officials were not even allowed to count the ballots that voters had cast.

Inside a rented house in Northwest Washington, behind a shaggy bear skin rug strung up as a makeshift curtain and amid rollaway beds set up for signature gatherers who have come from as far away as California and Colorado, there’s growing anxiety that history is about to repeat itself.

Organizers for Initiative 71, a measure that would fully legalize possession of marijuana in the District, plan to announce this week that they are closing in on 60,000 signatures — a comfortable buffer over the 22,600 needed to ensure the measure qualifies for the November ballot.

Having voters decide if the city should follow Colorado and Washington state in legalizing marijuana seemed – at least until last week – like a logical progression in the District.

District voters support legalization by a ration of 2 to 1, polls show. The city has medical marijuana dispensaries and is taking steps to soon loosen restraints and let doctors recommend the drug for any ailment. The D.C. Council even voted in March to decriminalize possession, making it a fine of $25, instead of a year-long jail term.

But just weeks before those more lenient provisions were to take effect, House Republicans last week resurrected the kind of budget language that for more than a decade blocked the District from launching the medical marijuana program that voters had overwhelmingly endorsed.

“It’s violating our rights as District residents, and I’m just afraid it’s going to happen all over again,” said Adam Eidinger, one of the chief organizers of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign. “If we can just get this on the ballot .?.?. then we’ll have a vote. That’s my immediate concern.”

Whether the budget measure passed last week by House Republicans, which bans the District from spending any money to loosen penalties for pot, could become law remains unclear. But supporters now see it as a race against Congress to get the measure certified.

Should federal lawmakers pass a spending plan with the restriction before Nov. 4, there is precedent for D.C. elections officials to decide that they are prohibited from counting votes on the issue.

If Congress hasn’t passed a budget by then, however, there is a strong chance that on Nov. 4, the District will legalize pot.

Popular support for legalization in the nation’s capital would hasten the arrival on Capitol Hill of a debate that has largely simmered in Western states. It would also present the District’s next mayor and council with a mandate to turn the initiative into a workable law, probably by regulating and taxing the sale of cannabis.

On Friday, one of the city’s candidates for mayor, council member David A. Catania (I-At large), staged a campaign event on the issue, demanding a meeting with Rep. Andy Harris, the Maryland Republican who led the charge to upend the District decriminalization.

Harris was gone, back to his Eastern Shore district, but he prepared a press statement in advance criticizing Catania and his stated focus of his mayoral campaign: schoolchildren.

“Really? Was he serious?” read Harris’s statement. “Passing marijuana decriminalization bills for teenagers is not the way to lower D.C.’s shamefully high rate of drug abuse among teenagers.”

Marijuana advocates note that drug treatment for minors had to be stripped from the ballot measure in part to comply with a requirement that D.C. initiatives proposed by voters may not commit the city to spending money.

As circulated, the measure would allow people 21 and older to possess as much as two ounces of marijuana for personal use and to grow up to three marijuana plants at home. To steer clear of a direct contradiction of federal law, the measure does not allow for the sale of marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana is uniquely complicated in the District — where anonymous polling shows that a vast majority of city residents support legalization, but where many fewer residents are willing to sign a petition saying so publicly.

Outside Metro stops and courthouses, petitioners said they were routinely brushed aside by buttoned-up bureaucrats and lawyers who said they feared for their day jobs, security clearances or standing in federal agencies.

“I can’t tell you how many times I heard ‘I’m gonna vote for it, but I will not sign it.’ ‘No, I can’t vote for it, I’m a teacher, I’m a federal worker, I’m a government contractor, ‘I’ll lose my job.’?” Eidinger said.

Nikolas Schiller, another top campaign organizer, said he came to see it as a “Snowden factor.” He said, “People don’t want to be put on some government list.”

In the campaign house, which radiates the scent of old resin across from the Zambian Embassy on Massachusetts Avenue, volunteers developed their own code names for volunteers on their side who felt equally constrained. One who spent evenings gathering signatures occasionally works at the White House, another at the Justice Department, a third still has a security clearance as a former Pentagon employee.

Without disclosing identities, the campaign contacted the federal office of personnel to see if the employees could be compromised. Signature gatherers boned up on the Hatch Act to have a comeback at Metro stations for bureaucrats’ concerns that signing the petition would run afoul of federal election rules.

The signatures also got tougher to come by, and like so many other D.C. political ventures, the campaign began depending more heavily on professionals. Some collect $2.75 per signature, pulling in as much as $1,100 a week.

The effort also became infused with social justice arguments pressed by unions and civil liberties groups.

“Oh my God. We have so many people collecting who are not users. It’s the non-users who are the most motivated,” Eidinger said. “It’s generally the jail thing; they really believe in social justice.”

Inadvertently, the campaign found that black residents were more effective at collecting signatures in predominantly white areas of the city than the other way around. When it was cast as preventing blacks from needlessly going to jail, more people signed on. But “if it was whites asking whites, they’d get blown off,” Eidinger said.

Still, Eidinger said the largest number of signatures for the ballot measure have come from the city’s majority African American wards east of the Anacostia River.

“If we’re going to get serious about ending mass incarcerations, this is serious policy,” said G. Malik Burnett, a national affairs manager with the Drug Policy Alliance, who was in the campaign headquarters last week discussing fundraising for November.

Eidinger put it another way: “Maybe D.C. is not about this, like, strict law and order, and instead, it’s more about, like, geez, can we all live together and stop throwing people in jail for stupid things?”

At Monsanto Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting on January 28, 2014, of the 524,909,387 shares outstanding and entitled to vote, 453,690,682 shares were represented, constituting an 86.43% quorum. Each matter was determined by a majority of votes cast.

The final results for each of the matters submitted to a vote of shareowners at the Annual Meeting are as follows:

Item No. 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

All of the board’s nominees for director were elected to serve until the Company’s 2015 Annual Meeting or until their respective successors are elected and qualified, by the votes set forth in the table below:

Votes Cast For

Votes Cast Against

Nominee

Number

% of Votes Cast

Number

% of Votes Cast

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

Gregory H. Boyce

408,216,045

97.88%

8,838,965

2.11%

2,482,408

34,153,264

Laura K. Ipsen

412,473,852

98.89%

4,588,762

1.10%

2,474,804

34,153,264

William U. Parfet

409,746,192

98.24%

7,299,267

1.75%

2,491,959

34,153,264

George H. Poste, Ph.D., D.V.M.

412,324,891

98.86%

4,740,463

1.13%

2,472,064

34,153,264

Item No. 2:

RATIFICATION OF AUDITORS

The appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2014 was ratified by the shareowners, by the votes set forth in the table below:

Votes Cast For

Votes Cast Against

Number

% of Votes Cast

Number

% of Votes Cast

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

446,705,816

99.01%

4,455,708

0.98%

2,529,158

0

Item No. 3:

ADVISORY APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The shareowners approved, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, executive compensation, by the votes set forth in the table below:

Votes Cast For

Votes Cast Against

Number

% of Votes Cast

Number

% of Votes Cast

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

406,416,515

97.74%

9,355,656

2.25%

3,765,247

34,153,264

Item No. 4:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL ONE

The shareowners did not approve the shareowner proposal presented at the meeting requesting a report related to labeling of food produced with genetic engineering, as evidenced by the votes set forth in the table below:

Votes Cast For

Votes Cast Against

Number

% of Votes Cast

Number

% of Votes Cast

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

15,387,230

4.16%

353,816,720

95.83%

50,333,468

34,153,264

Item No.5:

SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL TWO

The shareowners did not approve the shareowner proposal presented at the meeting requesting a report on certain matters related to GMO products, as evidenced by the votes set forth in the table below:

Votes Cast For

Votes Cast Against

Number

% of Votes Cast

Number

% of Votes Cast

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

24,112,427

6.51%

346,147,059

93.48%

49,277,932

34,153,264

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

After months of review and numerous public comments, on January 10, 2014 the DC Cannabis Campaign submitted the ballot initiative to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics. After two hearings in February and March, on April 5, 2014, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics finalized the short title, summary statement, and the legislative text for Ballot Initiative #71:

INITIATIVE MEASURE #71

SHORT TITLE

“Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014”

SUMMARY STATEMENT

This initiative, if passed, will make it lawful under District of Columbia law for a person 21 years of age or older to:

possess up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use;

grow no more than six cannabis plants with 3 or fewer being mature, flowering plants, within the person’s principal residence;

transfer without payment (but not sell) up to one ounce of marijuana to another person 21 years of age or older; and

use or sell drug paraphernalia for the use, growing, or processing of marijuana or cannabis.

LEGISLATIVE TEXT

BE IT ENACTED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THAT this act may be cited as the “Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014.”

Sec. 2. Section 401 of the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981, effective August 5, 1981 (D.C. Law 4-29; D.C. Official Code §48-904.01), is amended as follows:

Subsection (a)(1) is amended to read as follows: “(a)(1) Except as authorized by this chapter or Chapter 16B or Title 7, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, distribute, or possess, with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, it shall be lawful, and shall not be an offense under District of Columbia law, for any person twenty-one (21) years of age or older to :

“(B) Transfer to another person twenty-one years of age or older, without remuneration, marijuana weighing one ounce or less;

“(C) Possess, grow, harvest or process, within the interior of a house or rental unit that constitutes such person’s principal residence, no more than six cannabis plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, provided that all persons residing within a single house or single rental unit may not possess, grow, harvest or process, in the aggregate, more than twelve cannabis plants, with six or fewer being mature, flowering plants;

“(D) possess within such house or rental unit the marijuana produced by such plants;
Provided that, nothing in this subsection shall make it lawful to sell, offer for sale or make available for sale any marijuana or cannabis plants.”

The following new paragraphs are added to subsection (a) after paragraph (1), and the remaining paragraphs are renumbered accordingly:

“(2) The terms ‘controlled substance’ and ‘controlled substances,’ as used in this Code, shall not include:

“(A) Marijuana that is or was in the personal possession of a person twenty-one years of age or older at any specific time if the total amount of marijuana that is or was in the possession of that person at that time weighs or weighed two ounces or less;

“(B) Cannabis plants that are or were grown, possessed, harvested, or processed by a person twenty one years of age or older within the interior of a house or rental unit that constitutes or at the time constituted, such person’s principal residence, if such person at that time was growing no more than six cannabis plants with three or fewer being mature flowering plants and if all persons residing within that single house or single rental unit at that time did not possess, grow, harvest or process, in the aggregate, more than twelve cannabis plants, with six or fewer being mature, flowering plants; or

“(C) The marijuana produced by the plants which were grown, possessed, harvested or processed by a person who was, pursuant to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, permitted to grow, possess, harvest and process such plants, if such marijuana is or was in the personal possession of that person who is growing or grew such plants, within the house or rental unit in which the plants are or were grown.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the terms ‘controlled substance’ and ‘controlled substances’ as used in this Code shall include any marijuana or cannabis plant sold or offered for sale or made available for sale.

“(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no district government agency or office shall limit or refuse to provide any facility service, program or benefit to any person based upon or by reason of conduct that is made lawful by this subsection.

“(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any district government agency or office, or any employer, to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of any such agency, office or employer to establish and enforce policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.

“(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by use or ingestion of marijuana or to modify or affect the construction or application of any provision of this Code related to driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by marijuana.

“(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit any person, business, corporation, organization or other entity, or district government agency or office, who or which occupies, owns or controls any real property, from prohibiting or regulating the possession, consumption, use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, transportation or growing of marijuana on or in that property.

“(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to make unlawful any conduct permitted by the District of Columbia Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act of 2010 (D.C. Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code §§7-1671.01 et seq.).”

Sec. 3. Section 4 of the Drug Paraphernalia Act of 1982, effective September 17, 1982 (D.C. Law 4-149; D.C. Official Code §48-1103), is amended as follows:

(a) Subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:

“(a) Except as authorized by Chapter 16B of Title 7, it is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inhale, ingest, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance; except that it shall be lawful for any person twenty-one years of age or older to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to possess or use marijuana if such possession or use is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1), or to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to grow, possess, harvest or process cannabis plants, the growth, possession, harvesting or processing of which is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1). Whoever violates this subsection shall be imprisoned for not more than 30 days or fined for not more than $100, or both.”

Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:

“(b) Except as authorized by Chapter 16B of Title 7, it is unlawful for any person to deliver or sell, possess with intent to deliver or sell, or manufacture with intent to deliver or sell drug paraphernalia, knowingly, or under circumstances where one reasonably should know, that it will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance; except that it shall be lawful for any person to deliver or sell, possess with intent to deliver or sell, or manufacture with intent to deliver or sell, drug paraphernalia under circumstances in which one knows or has reason to know that such drug paraphernalia will be used solely for use of marijuana that is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1) or that such drug paraphernalia will be used solely for growing, possession, harvesting, or processing of cannabis plants that is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1). Whoever violates this subsection shall be imprisoned for not more than 6 months or fined for not more than $1,000, or both, unless the violation occurs after the person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this subchapter, in which case the person shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or fined not more than $5,000, or both.”

Sec. 4. The amounts of the fines set forth in District of Columbia Code sections 22-3571.01 and 48-1103 shall be adjusted through implementing or amending legislation enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia to the extent necessary to ensure that this Act does not negate or limit any act of the Council of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Code §1-204.46.

Sec. 5. This act shall take effect after a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act (Home Rule Act), approved December 24, 2971 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code §1-206.02(c)(1)).

Proxy Item No. 4: Shareowner Proposal One

This proposal was submitted by Adam Eidinger, Washington, D.C. As of July 30, 2013, Mr. Eidinger indicated that he held 75 shares of Monsanto common stock. The proposal has been carefully considered by the board of directors, which has concluded that its adoption would not be in the best interests of the company or its shareowners. For the reasons stated after the proposal, the board recommends a vote “Against” the shareowner proposal.

The proposal and supporting statement are presented as received from the shareowner proponent in accordance with the rules of the SEC, and the board of directors and the company disclaim any responsibility for its content. We will furnish, orally or in writing as requested, the address of the proponent of this shareowner proposal promptly upon written or oral request directed to the company’s Secretary.

Information regarding the inclusion of proposals in Monsanto’s proxy statement can be found on page 82 under Shareowner Proposals for 2015 Annual Meeting.

Shareowner StatementWHEREAS:

Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology.

For thousands of years, mankind has modified plants through grafting, artificial selection, and without the use of genetic engineering.

Transgenic DNA produced through modern genetic engineering is not found in natural foods and was not in the food supply of previous generations of mankind.

Americans have the right to know what they are eating.

U.S. law does not require the labeling of patented biotechnology in foods sold in grocery stores.

Company stands by its products and believes they are safe.

Due to the uncertainty regarding the potential negative side effects of genetic engineering on humans, animals, and the environment, it is imperative that the Company be transparent with customers concerning our labeling efforts.

The Company’s Pledge [1] says that we will ensure that “information is available, accessible, and understandable.”

Transparency provides consumers the power to decide what kind of foods are grown on farms and served on dinner tables.

Over 60 countries around the world have regulations concerning the labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering.

In 2002, the Company said “Food Labeling. It has Monsanto’s Full Backing” in regards to the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United Kingdom.

In 2013, there was legislation introduced in over two dozen U.S. state legislatures concerning the labeling of foods created using genetic engineering.

The state legislatures of Connecticut and Maine have passed legislation requiring foods sold in those states to be labeled if they were produced using genetic engineering, but only 4 or more other New England states pass similar legislation.

The Company spent $8,112,866.55 in 2012 to prevent California residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.

As of July 2013, the Company has spent $242,156.25 to prevent Washington state residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.

The money spent by the Company to prevent legislation that discloses whether food produced using genetic engineering dilutes shareowners earnings per share.

The Company believes that nationwide regulations are needed to prevent 56 different state & territory food labeling laws.

RESOLVED: The Monsanto Board shall prepare a report, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, assessing any material financial risks or operational potential impacts on the Company in order to:

Work with the FDA to develop food labeling guidelines for American consumers that discloses whether genetic engineering was used to produce the food;

Work with the FDA to develop standard threshold of 0.9% or higher for foods created with genetic engineering

Analyze the inclusion of U.S. patent numbers on American food labels where patented biotechnology was used to produce the food;

source: Voice of America
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2013/10/17/7810/feed/0Are We Eating Fishy Food? on Voice of Americahttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2013/08/19/7812/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2013/08/19/7812/#respondMon, 19 Aug 2013 19:45:00 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7812Today I was on Voice of America talking about the Are We Eating Fishy Food Campaign.

GMO Opponents Take Protest On the Road

Steve Baragona – August 19, 2013 10:26 AM

Riding around in a car topped with a giant half-vegetable, half-fish is bound to attract attention.

An oncoming driver pulls up in a stretch of slow traffic and asks, “What is it?”

Schiller explains it’s a Fishy Food Car and hands the man a card bearing a cartoon that asks, “Are we eating fishy food?”

It’s a visual pun. For opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), there’s something fishy – suspicious – about putting genes from other species into food crops, and they want foods containing GMO ingredients to say so on the label.

Labeling laws

There are no fish genes in the GMOs on the market today, but nearly all of the corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beets growing in the U.S. contain bacterial genes that help farmers control weeds and insects.

Schiller’s day job is with a D.C.-based public relations firm. But this summer his fishy apple car will join the fishy corn, soybean, sugar beet and tomato cars driving cross-country to Washington State, where a GMO labeling law is on the ballot this fall.

Momentum is behind them. Labeling laws were approved in Connecticut and Maine earlier this year.

Labeling everything containing a GMO ingredient would take a lot of ink. They’re in 80 percent of the foods on supermarket shelves, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, especially anything processed, in a bottle, box or bag.

Novel food

But are they bad for you? Schiller acknowledges that the only evidence of harm from GMOs is anecdotal, but he’s suspicious.

“This is a novel food. Our grandparents and previous generations didn’t eat this,” he said. “And now all of a sudden we’re seeing higher incidences of food and health issues. And so if [GMO makers] are saying, ‘Oh, everything’s safe,’ but nothing’s labeled, we really can’t trace the safety.”

Health authorities from the U.S. Institute of Medicine to the World Health Organization have said there’s nothing to fear from GMOs.

And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says there is no substantive difference between GMO and conventional ingredients, so it can’t require labels.

On the other hand, products without GMOs may say so on the label, and these are now some of the hottest items in the supermarket. Last year, sales of certified-organic products grew 7.4 percent, twice the rate of the food sector as a whole. And foods with the “Non-GMO Verified” seal passed $1 billion in sales in 2011.

‘We should’ve been talking about this’

This has not gone unnoticed by the biotech industry.

This summer, the industry-sponsored Council for Biotechnology Information made an unusual, if understated, admission.

“We recognize we haven’t done the best job communicating about GMOs,” Executive Director Cathy Enright said in a press release.

She was more frank in person.

“We should’ve been talking about this for two decades,” she said, adding that in the last few years in particular, social media have taken opposition to GMOs to a new level. “We haven’t even been near social media.”

Transparency

But for opponents like Schiller, it’s not about a failure to communicate. For one thing, he wants to see the results of safety tests the companies submitted to the FDA.

“And they can say, ‘This is proprietary information. We’ve done our testing. We don’t have to disclose to the public,’” he said. “Anytime you have a veil over something, people are going to want transparency. People are going to want sunshine. And as long as you withhold that, people are gonna think, ‘This is kinda fishy.’”

Sunshine might be about to break through. For the first time, Enright said, the companies’ testing data will be available online at a new website: GMOAnswers.com.

It’s part of a new pledge of openness and dialogue. Enright said the big seed companies will be opening their doors for people to come and see what they do. There will be dinners where supporters and opponents can sit down and talk. She said a panel of volunteers will be answering any questions the public might have.

“We believe that if people have the information at hand, that it won’t feel fishy; that they’ll be more comfortable with this technology,” she said.

But with a growing number of states considering GMO labeling laws, the industry has a lot of catching up to do.

Nikolas Schiller is used to receiving odd looks as he drives through the streets of Washington, D.C.

In fact, he can’t commute to and from work without pedestrians whipping out their smartphones to take pictures, drivers leaning out of their windows at traffic lights to ogle and children’s eyes opening wide.

That’s because a huge, brightly colored sculpture fusing a golden delicious apple and a goldfish with eyes is bolted to the top of his used black Ford Escort — which itself has bright pink stripes down its side.

“It’s been an interesting experience,” said Schiller, a 32-year-old St. Louis native sporting a ponytail, T-shirt and cutoff jeans. “I have a lot of fun driving it around. It brings a lot of joy. I see people’s faces smile, light up, point, kids laugh, giggle, people take photos — it’s not like a normal car.”

Nicknamed “Goldie,” it is one of five “fishy food” cars driving around Washington in recent weeks to promote the labeling of genetically modified food. Others carry sculptures of a corn cob, soybean, sugar beet and tomato.
They are the brainchild of the Mintwood Media Collective, a small public relations firm in D.C. that also is active in hemp issues, and local artist César Maxit. Funding was donated by Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, an organic and fair-trade soap company.

Next week, the cars will depart on a 3,000-mile journey across the country ending in the state of Washington, where a fierce battle is being waged between food companies and anti-GMO activists over a November ballot measure to require the labeling of all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.

The cars will pass through Pittsburgh; Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis; Chicago; Denver; and Salt Lake City before reaching their final stop in Seattle. They’ll join in protests and press conferences and stop at Monsanto Co.’s global headquarters in Missouri along the way.

For the past several weeks, though, they’ve been circling D.C. in a bid to raise awareness of the nationwide campaign to label GMOs.

As Schiller passed through the heart of downtown on a recent rush-hour commute home, several people stopped to gawk in the middle of intersections. A young girl with auburn hair pulled her father’s arm excitedly, grinning ear to ear.

“It’s about making sure that customers and consumers in America are informed about their food purchases,” Schiller said as his car passed K Street lobbyists and tourists alike.

The current push to label genetically modified food began about two years ago with a march from Brooklyn, N.Y., to the White House. Supporters argue that genetically engineered foods have not been proved safe for human consumption and that Americans should have the right to choose whether to purchase foods with ingredients that have been genetically modified.

The first of the cars — Fishy Corn — made its debut at the 2011 march, driving the entire route. At that time, its sculpture was built of a steel frame wrapped in chicken wire and covered in spray-painted packing tape.

The designs have been updated since then. Their bones still consist of a steel frame wrapped in chicken wire, but they now have a hard fiberglass shell. Goldie was designed in January of this year, with a Ford Escort purchased for the purpose. The sculpture is bolted down through the roof and can be removed if necessary, but it takes about six people to hoist it off the car.

“We use the fishy food as a metaphor. Not all these products have fish genes in them. We use it as a metaphor that there’s something fishy about it,” said Adam Eidinger, an activist shareholder with Monsanto who drove the Fishy Corn car from New York to D.C. in 2011. “If you don’t know what it is, it’s something fishy. That’s why we’re winning — that’s common sense.”

The battle over labeling hit new heights last year in the months leading up to the November elections in California, where a ballot measure would have required food companies to label all foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients. Food companies and trade organizations poured more than $40 million into a campaign to oppose the measure, and it was defeated 53 percent to 47 percent.

“Unfortunately, Prop 37 didn’t pass but in its failure was quite a large win for awareness building,” said Schiller, who first became involved in the campaign at the 2011 march, when he drove a 14-foot box truck that carried supplies for the walkers along the 313-mile route. “All of a sudden Americans were actually talking about that when there hadn’t been much talk about it for the last decade.”

This year, legislators in more than 20 states introduced measures to require the labeling of GMOs. Connecticut recently became the first state to enact a law requiring food companies to label products with genetically engineered ingredients, though the law is contingent on other nearby states putting in place similar measures.

Supporters see Washington state as the main battleground and are hoping that successful passage of ballot initiative I-522 there will spur action on a national level, either in the form of a national law or Food and Drug Administration action to require labels.

Public polling has shown that American consumers overwhelmingly support the labeling of genetically engineered food. More than 60 countries also carry labeling requirements.

But food manufacturers and biotechnology companies that oppose labeling cite costs and say that such labels would be misleading because the majority of science on genetically modified food has shown them safe for human consumption.

In the wake of the heightened debate over genetically modified organisms and the recent discovery of unapproved genetically engineered wheat in a farm field in Oregon, Monsanto, BASF Corp., Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Co. and Syngenta AG this week have banded together to launch a website, GMOanswers.com, to address health concerns with the foods.

“We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks,” Monsanto says. “Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”

‘What’s this part of?’

In D.C., the “fishy” cars have attracted wide attention on the street and in social media. After circling the city, Schiller will log on to Twitter to see who has posted photos of Goldie — usually there are several people — and will respond in the voice of the vehicle.

Although the car is registered in his name — and is Schiller’s first vehicle as an adult — it will soon be handed over to activists in Washington state until at least after the November elections. He has been making the most of it before that happens and taking long, roundabout routes to and from his office in Adams Morgan, a hip neighborhood in the nation’s capital.

During rush hour earlier this week, as Schiller stopped Goldie at a light in downtown D.C., a bicyclist rode up in the bike lane next to the passenger side of the car. He tapped on the window.

“I saw these all over. … What’s this part of?” the man asked.

Schiller handed the cyclist a palm-sized bright-blue pamphlet fresh off the presses that relays the group’s main talking points. The pamphlet was designed by Maxit, the same artist who designed the structures for the tops of the cars.

Encounters like that are not uncommon. Schiller said he normally explains that the car’s name is Goldie and she’s half goldfish, half golden delicious. While there isn’t a genetically engineered apple on the market, the Agriculture Department is currently reviewing an application for one that doesn’t turn brown when stored.

Schiller will take the car in for detailing before next week’s cross-country drive. The car will be painted with messaging describing its missions. Up through this week, though, it’s been unlabeled — like GMOs, Schiller quipped.

Inquisitive pedestrians are usually receptive to the car’s message, he said.

“They give the thumbs up and go like ‘I want food labeled’ or ‘I don’t want to eat that stuff,'” he said. “Most people don’t realize that they’re eating it so there’s this disconnect between the knowledge of the food that they’re actually eating and the knowledge of the food that they don’t want to be eating. Generally, if you’re eating a processed food that came out of a box at the supermarket, it likely has a genetically engineered ingredient. But since it doesn’t say ‘genetically engineered ingredient,’ they’re not going to know that that’s what it is.”

Since the 1990s, the Food and Drug Administration has officially held the position that genetically engineered foods do not require special labeling. There are eight genetically modified crops currently available in the United States: corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya and squash.

“The policy states that FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way,” FDA says, “or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.”

The effects of mandatory labeling would be “positively damaging to public understanding of science,” Mark Lynas, an environmentalist who recently shocked the anti-GMO world by reversing his position to one in favor of genetically modified food, said at an event this month in D.C.

Industry, he said, would be better served by a widespread voluntary labeling system for non-GMO products that allows consumers to choose what types of food they wish to buy, he said.

“I think what’s a real problem is to have mandatory labeling, which will then totally restructure the whole supply chain, and we’ll have knock-on effects, which actually do affect food security in other parts of the world,” Lynas said.

In the absence of labeling, Schiller has been growing his own vegetable garden at his house in D.C. for several years and purchasing his groceries from Whole Foods, which announced earlier this year that it would require labels on all GMO products.

He’s expecting varied levels of turnout and plenty of stares at the stops along the route to Washington state next week. But he’s gotten used to the attention.

“It’s one of those things that becomes so normal that you don’t realize it’s there,” Schiller said. “The only thing that kind of reminds you is the fact that you’ve got people pointing and staring and taking photographs.”

This article was obtained online from E&E News. The article is not in the public domain but is being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to document my advocacy for honest food labeling.
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2013/08/01/7922/feed/0Washington Post: Mobile protest art draws gawkers in D.C.http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2013/06/12/8002/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2013/06/12/8002/#respondWed, 12 Jun 2013 19:36:40 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=8002

Mobile protest art draws gawkers in D.C.

By Robert Samuels June 12, 2013

What is that thing?

Parked near the U Street Metro station is a junky Ford Escort with a fiberglass whatchamacallit on top. The red structure is shaped like an apple, except for the fins jutting from its sides. It has googly eyes, a goofy smile and a face more Muppet than man.

For weeks, it has befuddled neighbors. No one knows who owns it. No one knows what it means. And yet, it’s been spotted throughout Northwest. It has been parked at the new Costco. It has made weekend revelers in Adams Morgan question their sobriety.

“I’ve been trying to figure it out for days,’’ said a man walking near the 1800 block of Vermont Avenue. Then he sighted a second structure, this one atop a Volvo. Same googly eyes, but shaped like a green bean — with fins.

A breakthrough came Tuesday morning when 32-year-old Rica Madrid was seen getting into the car with the finned green thing. Its name is “Soyna,” modeled after a soybean, Madrid said. She pointed to the apple atop the Escort: “That is Goldie.’’

Madrid and her co-workers at Mintwood Media Collective (“Communication Strategies for Social Change”) helped create the two structures to convey the message that food sprayed with toxic chemicals is, in a word, “fishy.” Hence, the fins.

The two vehicles will be part of a caravan of activists that will depart in August on a coast-to-coast trip to Seattle, making stops along the way to lobby for legislation to label genetically modified food.

Right now, the connection between the cartoonish cartop produce and the cause is a little confusing. Mock labels will be added to explain it all, Madrid admits.

Meanwhile, 300-pound structures can’t fit inside rowhouses, so Madrid and her colleagues mounted them on the cars early.

These are the toils of creating protest art. It’s hardly an unusual activity in Washington, a magnet for protesters of all sorts. But it’s jarring to see the art without the context, as Madrid and her colleagues use the cars for routine daily errands — going to work, picking people up from the airport and bulk-buying groceries.

Nikolas Schiller, 32, who drives Goldie the Apple, doesn’t mind the baffled stares. No one fully understands what’s going in their food anymore either, he says.

“That [confusion] is kind of what we’re going for,” he said.

The kids smile when they see Goldie the Apple, because Goldie the Apple is smiling at them. It’s not unusual for someone to come up to Schiller or Madrid during lunchtime, asking whether the cars are new food trucks.

As Madrid climbed into the Volvo to head to work from Shaw, a neighbor walking with her 3-year-old approached:

“What is this all about?” Sandrea Ballestero asked. “We never see you!”

“We are protesting GMOs,” she said, using the acronym for genetically modified organisms.

“Do you have a Web site?”

They do, but it’s not ready yet.

Madrid drove past the suit-and-tie set downtown, some of whom, caught up in their smartphones, paid the car no mind. A man in a blue oxford shirt and khakis pulled out his smartphone for a quick pic. A window-washer scaling the low floors of a building saw the large soybean in the reflection of the windows and cheered. A baby in a stroller near Farragut Square looked into those googly eyes and started to bawl.

Occasionally, someone will ask what she’s doing, and she’ll tell them about genetically modified food. Sometimes the person will start sharing what he or she knows about the history of hybridization or genetic engineering or selective breeding — pretty sophisticated stuff that reminds Madrid that driving the vehicle has a serious purpose.

“Some people are really knowledgeable about the subject,’’ Madrid said. “You just have to be ready for people to debate you. I mean, this is Washington.”

This article was published on the front page of the Metro Section on June 13, 2013 and obtained online from Washington Post. The article is not in the public domain but is being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to document my advocacy for honest food labeling.
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2013/06/12/8002/feed/0The Right2Know March for GMO Labelinghttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2012/10/15/7805/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2012/10/15/7805/#respondMon, 15 Oct 2012 19:09:10 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7805

From October 1 to October 16 2011, I worked on the Right2Know March. My duty was to oversee the movement of all belongings of the 30-50 marchers during the 300 mile march. This entailed driving a rented box truck about 20 miles each day and helping setup the day’s camp. We walked through New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Washington, DC. On my birthday, which took place during the march, I “took the day off” and marched with everyone from an organic farm in Rising Sun, Maryland across the Susquehanna River to Camp Ramblewood in Darlington, Maryland. It was quite an amazing experience to work with such a diverse array of talented and passionate individuals.

The video above was published on the one year anniversary of the Right2Know March. It was produced by Rapunzel, one of the many sponsors of the march and features interviews with marchers. The video below was filmed, produced, and published during the first few days of the march in New York City and New Jersey.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/08/10/7774/feed/0Text of the Department of Justice’s “Cole Memo” – June 29, 2011http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/31/7771/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/31/7771/#respondSun, 31 Jul 2011 18:59:55 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7771Following up on the Ogden Memo, I decided to post the “Cole Memo” below:

MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: James M. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions
Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use

Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department’s assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department’s position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution ofmarijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana (the “Ogden Memo“).

The Department ofJustice is committed to the enforcement ofthe Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.
A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly, the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana. The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.

The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.

The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.

Source: Americans For Safe Access [PDF]
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/31/7771/feed/0Text of the Department of Justice’s “Ogden Memo” – October 19, 2009http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/30/7766/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/30/7766/#respondSat, 30 Jul 2011 18:56:25 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7766In the yesterday’s newspaper article the DOJ’s 2009 Ogden Memo was mentioned, here is the full text of the document:
USDOJ Seal
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
The Deputy Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
October 19,2009

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: David W. Ogden
Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States
Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.
The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance. The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug
trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

• unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
• violence;
• sales to minors;
• financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
• ties to other criminal enterprises.

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

Source: Department of Justice [PDF]
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/30/7766/feed/0“Official: Medical marijuana in D.C. by May 2012” by Victor Zapana, Washington Post, July 29, 2011http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/29/7762/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/29/7762/#respondFri, 29 Jul 2011 18:35:49 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7762Today I was in the Washington Post article about the progress of the District’s medical cannabis program.

‘Glacial’ pace

Still, some possible participants — such as Nikolas Schiller — consider the city’s pace “glacial.” Schiller’s group, D.C. Patients’ Cooperative, identified potential cultivation and dispensary sites in the city after the law passed.

Concerned about the program’s pace, the cooperative did not sign any leases, and many of those sites are no longer available. Schiller, the only paid staff member, was laid off by the group’s investors.

This paragraph in article is slightly incorrect. I wasn’t laid off by the group’s investors. As a board member of the non-profit, hired as an independent contractor by the non-profit, I voted to lay off myself with the majority of board members. It’s not that I was failing to do my job properly, rather, after waiting nearly 18 months and seeing no progress, DCPC decided to stop wasting resources on a program that was moving so slowly.

UPDATE – As of May 2012, there is still no legal medical cannabis in the District of Columbia.

A year after the District legalized medical marijuana, nobody is legally growing or selling it. Patients once thought that they could be getting the drug by early 2011, but bureaucratic delays and the city’s caution in implementing its drug law have caused some would-be patients and entrepreneurs to fume.

But things appear to be picking up. District regulators are forging ahead despite a recent Justice Department memo that has worried coordinators of medical-marijuana programs nationwide, and city officials said Tuesday that dozens of individuals and businesses will be allowed to apply for licenses to operate five dispensaries and 10 cultivation centers.

City officials expect patients to have access to medicinal marijuana — which advocates say can relieve pain and stimulate the appetite — by May 2012.
“This is a very complicated process,” said D.C. Health Director Mohammad N. Akhter. “The community should be very pleased that we are moving forward with this and are doing things in a way that will make sure the program will be here to stay.”

Still, some people are skeptical. District officials have already missed a launch goal set when the law went into effect July 27, 2010.

“I don’t believe they’re going to be ready to deliver” by May, said Nancy Miranda, 37, a Columbia Heights resident who said she wants to use prescription marijuana for her migraine headaches. “If they do, they’ll surprise me and, of course, make me very happy.”

Akhter said recent changes in the program — including the decision by Mayor Vincent Gray (D) in April to have the Health Department run the application process — caused some delays.

“Once you move something like this, you need to do new rules and regulations and it needs to go to the council,” Akhter said. “Considering all of those things, it has moved very expeditiously.”

Akhter would not identify the approved applicants — they are scheduled to be announced Friday — but he expects candidates to file proposals by Sept. 9. A six-member panel — a patient advocate and representatives from five city departments — will review the proposals with commissioners of affected Advisory Neighborhood Commissions over three months, he said.

Akhter said that he expects license awardees to be named by year’s end and that marijuana should be ready to be dispensed by next May. “When this program gets implemented, it’s going to be the tightest-controlled program in the United States,” he said.

‘Glacial’ pace

Still, some possible participants — such as Nikolas Schiller — consider the city’s pace “glacial.” Schiller’s group, D.C. Patients’ Cooperative, identified potential cultivation and dispensary sites in the city after the law passed.

Concerned about the program’s pace, the cooperative did not sign any leases, and many of those sites are no longer available. Schiller, the only paid staff member, was laid off by the group’s investors.

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said that although he wants the process to move quickly, he appreciates the city’s deliberate approach, even as some community activists have become “impatient.”

Being careful is important, marijuana policy experts say, because recent raids and Justice Department communications indicate that the federal government might still choose to prosecute state-licensed medical-marijuana operators.

The Justice memo

For some experts, a Justice Department memo written in June by Deputy U.S. Attorney General James M. Cole suggests that prosecutors can target state-licensed dispensaries and cultivation centers because, Cole wrote, people “in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities,” violate federal law, regardless of state law.

District officials “should be concerned” about the memo, said Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist who supports the legalization of marijuana.

Justice Department spokeswoman Jessica A. Smith said in an e-mail that the memo “reinforces” departmental drug policy “in light of changing state laws and increased commercial cultivation of marijuana for purported medical purposes.”

Varied responses

National responses to the memo have varied. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has continued a statewide hold on issuing dispensary licenses, saying that the memo “offers little more than continued confusion and doublespeak.” And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) announced a plan last week to create six new dispensaries.

Beatrice “B.B.” Otero, D.C. deputy mayor for health and human services, said in a statement that the Gray administration does not want to “put anything forward that could jeopardize the implementation of the law.”

City and Justice Department officials have met to discuss Cole’s memo, according to authorities. Otero said Gray thinks that the city’s program will allow licensed operators to work “in a safe and medically appropriate manner.”

The process continues on Friday. Akhter said the application will ask for prospective locations and plans for on-site security and public education about the drug.

E-mails, interviews and letters of intent submitted by prospective applicants provide some ideas about where facilities might go. Some suggested sites in warehouses near busy thoroughfares; others targeted commercial districts across the city.

For and against

O. Wesley Martin wants to run a dispensary and cultivation center in the bustling H Street NE corridor. In an e-mail, Martin said that he has met with area business owners and that “everyone is anxiously awaiting my debut.”

Some are not, however. “We’re against that. We’re for Jesus,” Anthony Chloe, manager of a Salvation Army thrift store, said when told of the possibility of a medical-marijuana facility nearby.

But Jonathan de la Cruz, 23, is happy that the District has made progress.

De la Cruz — paralyzed from the chest down after he was shot in February 2009 — said he buys marijuana illegally to ease leg spasms. A Hyattsville resident, he said he plans to move to the District and then obtain a prescription for marijuana.

De la Cruz said he knows what he is doing is illegal, but he agreed to tell his story because he thinks medical marijuana is much-needed by those with severe ailments and disabilities.

“Let’s speed up the process and make sure we get there,” he said. “There are people who need it.”

This cartoon shows the DC Colonist trying to enter the voting booth, but is told by Uncle Sam to go to the tax or selective service booths. The cartoon implies that the while District residents pay taxes & go to war for America, they are not permitted the sacred right to vote in U.S. elections. Thus DC residents fight & die in American wars and pay taxes to the Federal government, but at the same time, have no say who makes the decisions regarding taxation, war, and peace.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/07/04/7756/feed/0Photograph of the Vigil for the 40 Year Anniversary of America’s War on Drugshttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/17/7748/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/17/7748/#respondSat, 18 Jun 2011 03:53:14 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7748

Today I setup the sound system for a somber vigil outside of the White House. Forty years ago today President Nixon declared a War on Drugs at a press conference and since then the United States has wasted trillions of dollars on an unwinnable war against the personal freedoms of American citizens. As you can read below, Nixon did not explicitly use the term “War on Drugs” at that press conference but instead used terminology that references combat. I can’t help but wonder, how much longer until this war is over?

Richard Nixon speaking….

Ladies and gentlemen:

I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o’clock and was completed 2 hours later.

I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to be made to the Nation:

America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.

I have asked the Congress to provide the legislative authority and the funds to fuel this kind of an offensive. This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.

With regard to this offensive, it is necessary first to have a new organization, and the new organization will be within the White House. Dr. Jaffe, who will be one of the briefers here today, will be the man directly responsible. He will report directly to me, and he will have the responsibility to take all of the Government agencies, nine, that deal with the problems of rehabilitation, in which his primary responsibilities will be research and education, and see that they work not at cross-purposes, but work together in dealing with the problem.

If we are going to have a successful offensive, we need more money. Consequently, I am asking the Congress for $155 million in new funds, which will bring the total amount this year in the budget for drug abuse, both in enforcement and treatment, to over $350 million.

As far as the new money is concerned, incidentally, I have made it clear to the leaders that if this is not enough, if more can be used, if Dr. Jaffe, after studying this problem, finds that we can use more, more will be provided. In order to defeat this enemy which is causing such great concern, and correctly so, to so many American families, money will be provided to the extent that it is necessary and to the extent that it will be useful.

Finally, in order for this program to be effective, it is necessary that it be conducted on a basis in which the American people all join in it. That is why the meeting was bipartisan; bipartisan because we needed the support of the Congress, but bipartisan because we needed the leadership of the Members of the Congress in this field.

Fundamentally, it is essential for the American people to be alerted to this danger, to recognize that it is a danger that will not pass with the passing of the war in Vietnam which has brought to our attention the fact that a number of young Americans have become addicts as they serve abroad, whether in Vietnam, or Europe, or other places. Because the problem existed before we became involved in Vietnam; it will continue to exist afterwards. That is why this offensive deals with the problem there, in Europe, but will then go on to deal with the problem throughout America.

One final word with regard to Presidential responsibility in this respect. I very much hesitate always to bring some new responsibility into the White House, because there are so many here, and I believe in delegating those responsibilities to the departments. But I consider this problem so urgent–I also found that it was scattered so much throughout the Government, with so much conflict, without coordination–that it had to be brought into the White House.

Consequently, I have brought Dr. Jaffe into the White House, directly reporting to me, so that we have not only the responsibility but the authority to see that we wage this offensive effectively and in a coordinated way.

The briefing team will now be ready to answer any questions on the technical details of the program.

Citation: Richard Nixon: “Remarks About an Intensified Program for Drug Abuse Prevention and Control.,” June 17, 1971. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3047
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/17/7748/feed/0DC Flag Day in the Fleshhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/15/7728/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/15/7728/#respondThu, 16 Jun 2011 00:01:29 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7728Back in mid-May, late at night after a few of our friends had gotten out of jail after being arrested outside of the U.S. Capitol demonstrating in favor of voting rights & statehood for DC, Ally B., Adam E., and myself were discussing ways we could do another action. I brought up the idea of using Flag Day as an upcoming day that people could mobilize around and everyone agreed that there was enough time to plan & execute an event. Inspired by Shana Glickfield’s collection of DC Flag tattoos, together we wrote the first press release and since Adam & I were busy working on other projects, Ally did the rest of the organizing for “DC Flag Day in the Flesh“. In all, this was one of the best events I’ve ever helped to organize because we had such a great turnout and very positive media coverage. I’m looking forward to helping organize the second annual DC Flag Day in the Flesh :-) I’d like to get the folks from Guinness Book of World Records to come and document “the most tattooed ‘state’ flags in one location.”

Inked and Non-Inked Gather in Dupont Circle

Celebrate Flag Day Tuesday, June 14, 6-8 pm

It is well known that thousands of District of Columbia residents past and present sport DC flag tattoos. In fact, George Washington, whose family crest is the source of the DC flag, would never have predicted that so many would passionately adorn themselves to show their civic pride. Over the years, the “Three Stars and Two Bars” has come to symbolize over 600,000 Americans who can not enact their own laws nor elect voting representatives to the House and Senate.

This Flag Day 2011 we encourage a large gathering of people with DC Flag tattoo’s and those that support them as a way to get under the skin of America and bring attention to DC’s lack of rights in Congress.

Come celebrate DC Flag Tattoos, paint large Give Me a Vote Hands, and find out what you can do to get DC equal representation in Congress.

When Allyson Behnke’s friend was arrested back in May for rallying in support of District representation in Congress, she and a few others started brainstorming ways to raise awareness for the cause in a more entertaining way. Somebody mentioned Flag Day, and an idea tattooed itself on her mind.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/15/7728/feed/0Cameo on the History Channel’s “How the States Got Their Shapes”http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/14/7727/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/14/7727/#respondWed, 15 Jun 2011 04:02:49 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7727

How the States Got Their Shapes – Episode 6 – Use It or Lose It
If you thought our borders were set in stone, you’d be wrong. Who stole a corner of Washington, DC? Is Ohio actually a state? And why isn’t St. Louis our nation’s capital? One thing’s for sure — our map could look very different. How did we create order out of so much chaos? With the vote.

Back in November of 2010 I was invited by a producer from Half Yard Productions to be interviewed for the upcoming History Channel show “How the States Got Their Shapes.” Near the Lincoln Memorial, I was interviewed by host Brian Unger for a good 30 minutes, but after watching tonight’s episode about Washington, DC, I found that most of the interview was left on the cutting room floor. Nonetheless, I came across as knowledgeable (albeit briefly) and the episode did a decent job at explaining some of the issues residents of the District of Columbia face (like no Congressional representation). If you have a chance, watch the rerun of Episode 6 “Use It or Lose It” on the History Channel or purchase a digital copy from Amazon.com.

Camera Trick Explained: In order for people to draw on the screen, like I am doing above, the producers mounted a clear piece of plexiglass in front of the camera, and then in the editing room they reversed the footage (left to right) to make it appear that we were drawing correctly. Had my outfit had some lettering they would show up in reverse due to their camera trick. I’m also right-handed…
Also see DCist’s brief review of the show.

The Triumph of the Humanities

By STANLEY FISH

Our house in the western Catskills overlooks the Pepacton Reservoir, a 20-mile ribbon of water between Margaretville and Downsville. Maps on the Internet, depending on their scale and detail, will show you where the reservoir is in relation to nearby towns and roads. What they won’t show you, although every resident of the area knows about them, are the four towns — Arena, Shavertown, Union Grove and Pepacton — that were flooded in the middle ‘50s so that the reservoir could be constructed. (Today, after more than 50 years, resentment against New York City remains strong.)

The maps and pictures of the reservoir are determinedly linear; the eye follows the water in its journey down Route 30 toward the city. But for the the old-timers, and the new-timers who have been caught up in the romance of the lost towns, the eye stops and looks down to what are now the geological layers of civilizations, one on the surface and claiming a literal, no-nonsense empirical reality (“If you want get from Andes to Downsville, you can travel on either side of the reservoir”), and the other below the surface, where lie subterranean Brigadoons that emerge not every hundred years but whenever the reservoir gets so low that pieces of a drowned culture suddenly and unnervingly come into view. At those moments the eye simply cannot travel the straight line encouraged by visible coherences and road signs; the natural pull of forward progress is forestalled and one begins to ruminate on what lies beneath our every step as we raise our feet to take the next one.

There is now a (relatively) new discipline in which this breaking down of time into spatial units that are read vertically rather than horizontally is the obligatory gesture. It calls itself GeoHumanities and its project is nicely encapsulated in the title of one of the essays in a collection that officially announces the emergence of a field of study. The collection is called “GeoHumanities: Art, History, Text at the Edge of Place”; the essay (by Edward L. Ayers, an historian and president of the University of Richmond) is entitled “Mapping Time.”

Ayers’s project is to map the changes that followed upon the emancipation of the slaves after the Civil War. He and his colleagues begin with a simple map and then they locate populations on the landscape and “put down one layer after another: of race, of wealth, of literacy, of water courses, of roads, of railways, of soil type, of voting patterns, of social structure.”

The layered picture that results can then be “read” and a story can be told, the story of complex relationships that are frozen by the analysis but which, of course, are really in motion. The next step is to acknowledge the motion by using cinematic techniques that present the passage of time as spatial units that succeed one another. “By converting time to motion,” says Ayers, “we can visualize the passage of time (as one watches the hands of a clock move).”

Ayers calls this technique of representation “deep contingency,” and he acknowledges its artificiality. The metaphor of a layered reality “is a fiction of course, since the layers continually interact and the ‘top’ layer of humans constantly changes the ‘bottom’ layer of landscape; but it is a useful fiction, since it reminds us of the structural depth of time and experience.” The project is a synthesis of geography (now renamed Geographic Information Science, or GIS) and history: “GIS is about patterns and structures; history is about motion; by integrating the two, we can see layers of events, layers of the consequences of unpredictability.”

That is, we can read events not merely historically, as the product of the events preceding them, but geologically, as the location of sedimented patterns of culture, economics, politics, agriculture. What is being attempted is a reorientation of perception, an alternative way of interpreting the world in which “space is not merely in the service of time, but has a poetics of its own, which reveals itself through a geographical or topological imagination rather than a historical one” (Paul Smethurst, “The Postmodern Chronotope”).

The interplay in these quotations between a literary and a geographical vocabulary tells us what GeoHumanities is all about; it is the elaboration, by methods derived from the humanities, of “the stratified record upon which we set our feet” (the title of another essay and a quote from Thomas Mann). It is the realization, in a style of analysis, of the “spatial turn,” a “critical shift that divested geography of its largely passive role as history’s ‘stage’ and brought to the fore intersections between the humanities and the earth sciences” (Peta Mitchell in “GeoHumanities”).

“Intersections” is perhaps too weak a word, because it suggests two disciplines that retain their distinctiveness but collaborate occasionally on a specific project. The stronger assertion, made by many in the volume, is that the division between empirical/descriptive disciplines and interpretive disciplines is itself a fiction and one that stands in the way of the production of knowledge.

An apparently empirical project like geography is, and always has been, interpretive through and through. “The map has always been a political agent”(Lize Mogel), has always had a “generative power” (Emily Eliza Scott), and that power can only be released and studied by those who approach their work in the manner of literary critics. Geography “demands a reader who is at once an archeologist, geologist and geographer, a reader who … is at all times attentive to the stratification of history, memory, language, and landscape and who can read obliquely through their layers” (Peta Mitchell).

If interpretive methods and perspectives are necessary to the practice of geography, they are no less necessary to other projects supposedly separate from the project of the humanities. And that is why, in addition to GeoHumanities, we now have Biohumanities (“the humanities not only comment on the significance or implications of biological knowledge, but add to our understanding of biology itself” — Karola Stotz and Paul E. Griffiths), Disability Studies (of which the X-Men films might be both a representation and an instance), Metahistory (the study of the irreducibly narrative basis of historical “fact”), Law and Literature (the laying bare of the rhetorical and literary strategies giving form to every assertion in the law), Cultural Anthropology (an inquiry into the very possibility of anthropological observation that begins by acknowledging the inescapability of perspective and the ubiquity of interpretation), Cultural Sociology (“the commitment to hermeneutically reconstructing social texts in a rich and persuasive way” — Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith), and other hybrids already emergent and soon to emerge.

What this all suggests is that while we have been anguishing over the fate of the humanities, the humanities have been busily moving into, and even colonizing, the fields that were supposedly displacing them. In the ‘70s and the ‘80s the humanities exported theory to the social sciences and (with less influence) to the sciences; many disciplines saw a pitched battle between the new watchwords — perspective, contingency, dispersion, multi-vocality, intertextuality — and the traditional techniques of dispassionate observation, the collection of evidence, the drawing of warranted conclusions and the establishing of solid fact. Now the dust has settled and the invaded disciplines have incorporated much of what they resisted. Propositions that once seemed outlandish — all knowledge is mediated, even our certainties are socially constructed — are now routinely asserted in precincts where they were once feared as the harbingers of chaos and corrosive relativism.

One could say then that the humanities are the victors in the theory wars; nearly everyone now dances to their tune. But this conceptual triumph has not brought with it a proportionate share of resources or institutional support. Perhaps administrators still think of the humanities as the province of precious insights that offer little to those who are charged with the task of making sense of the world. Volumes like “GeoHumanities” tell a different story, and it is one that cannot be rehearsed too often.

Source: New York Times
]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/13/7711/feed/0America the Beautifulhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/10/7696/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/10/7696/#respondFri, 10 Jun 2011 17:28:19 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7696

One day some of the other teachers and I decided to go on a trip to 14,000-foot Pikes Peak. We hired a prairie wagon. Near the top we had to leave the wagon and go the rest of the way on mules. I was very tired. But when I saw the view, I felt great joy. All the wonder of America seemed displayed there, with the sea-like expanse.

Seventeen years later composer Samuel A. Ward rewrote Katharine Lee Bates poem into what is sung today. Below are the two versions side by side:

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife,
When once or twice, for man’s avail,
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain,
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for heroes prov’d
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country lov’d,
And mercy more than life.
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev’ry gain divine.

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/10/7696/feed/0Photographs from the top of Pike’s Peakhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/09/7691/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/09/7691/#respondFri, 10 Jun 2011 04:14:45 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7691Today my step-father & I decided to play tourists and take the Pike’s Peak Cog Railway up to the top of Pike’s Peak. I’m slightly ashamed to say that this was my first time to the summit of a 14er in Colorado. I’ve been up a few high-13ers, but never a 14er, until today (and by way of a train instead of a trail!).

From the top I could see distant forest fires that were burning to the west as well as the entire expanse of Colorado Springs to the east. I can see why the earlier explorers found this mountain to be of such military importance- you can see for miles in all directions. After walking around the summit, we went inside the welcome center and I bought some of their fresh donuts for the slow ride back down the mountain.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/09/7691/feed/0Hello from the base of the Contiental Dividehttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/08/7683/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/08/7683/#respondWed, 08 Jun 2011 17:05:47 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7683
I filmed this short video at Kroenke Lake in the San Isabel National Forest. Click here to see some of the photos from the hike. If this video does not work, blame Facebook’s embed code and/or try clicking here.
This short video includes a 4 short video clips I took of our hike to the snow-covered Kroenke Lake at the base of the Continental Divide.

Clip #1 = view of an unnamed peak near Mount Yale and snow in the forest
Clip #2 = view of the snow-covered meadow near Kroenke Lake
Clip #3 = “Hello from the base of the Continental Divide”
Clip #4 = driving away from the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Area with Mount Princeton off in the distance.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/08/7683/feed/0Photographs of Backpacking in the San Isabel National Foresthttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/07/7670/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/07/7670/#respondWed, 08 Jun 2011 04:04:15 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7670One of my goals for the trip to Colorado was to return to the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Area. After some cursory planning, my step-father & I decided to spend three days in the backcountry near Buena Vista, Colorado. The ultimate destination was Kroenke Lake, which is situated at the base of the continental divide in the San Isabel National Forest. The plan was to hike as far as possible the first day, setup camp for the night, the following day hike to Kroenke Lake, and the final day hike back to the trailhead. While we were expecting there to be some snow still on the ground (it’s June after all), we were not expecting to hit dense snowpack within the first mile of hiking toward our destination. We ultimately pitched our tent on a snow bank that was nearest to dry land about 2.5 miles from the trailhead. Earlier this year I purchased snowshoes and by the end of the trip I sincerely wished that I had brought them! All in all, I love backpacking in this part of Colorado! My next goal for this area to is to climb one of the Collegiate Peaks.

At least the snow kept our beer cold :-)
My favorite wildlife that we encountered at Kroenke Lake was the Wilson’s Warbler. Its an absolutely gorgeous bird!
Crossing snow-fed mountain streams can be a bit precarious.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/07/7670/feed/0Photographs of Rock Climbing in Pike National Foresthttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/04/7654/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/04/7654/#respondSun, 05 Jun 2011 04:39:28 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7654I’m not a big into rock climbing, but my mom really wanted to take me to one of her favorite climbs “Madacat” in Pike National Forest. I used borrowed climbing shoes, which were slightly too small, and while I didn’t fall once while climbing, my feet were in severe pain by the end of the day.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/04/7654/feed/0Photograph of the Aftermath of the Haymen Fire in Pike National Foresthttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/04/7650/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/04/7650/#respondSat, 04 Jun 2011 23:38:27 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7650Today we are going rock climbing at a place my mom & step father regularly climb at. On the way to the site I snapped this photograph of the burnt remains of Colorado’s largest fire, the 2002 Haymen Fire.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/02/7636/feed/0Off to Colorado –> It’s All Goodhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/01/7626/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/06/01/7626/#respondWed, 01 Jun 2011 17:45:18 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7626I’m heading to Colorado for the next 10 days. I took this grainy photo on the pilot’s luggage while I was waiting on the tarmac to enter the plane: “It’s All Good”

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/30/7621/feed/0Poor Cucumber Flowerhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/28/7618/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/28/7618/#respondSat, 28 May 2011 20:52:03 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7618I want to take this cucumber plant outside and put it into the ground, but all of the other cucumber seedlings I germinated this year have been killed by birds, mammals, and insects…. Poor cucumber flower, you will get pollinated soon enough.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/28/7618/feed/0GeoHumanities: Art, History, Text at the Edge of Placehttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/26/7604/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/26/7604/#respondThu, 26 May 2011 21:25:21 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7604My map “The Modern Geographer” graces the cover of this new book published by Routledge. This map was previously used as the cover art for the symposium program that helped lay the groundwork for this book. I received my copy and am looking forward to reading it.

Publication Date: May 26, 2011

In the past decade, there has been a convergence of transdisciplinary thought characterized by geography’s engagement with the humanities, and the humanities’ integration of place and the tools of geography into its studies.

GeoHumanities maps this emerging intellectual terrain with thirty cutting edge contributions from internationally renowned scholars, architects, artists, activists, and scientists. This book explores the humanities’ rapidly expanding engagement with geography, and the multi-methodological inquiries that analyze the meanings of place, and then reconstructs those meanings to provoke new knowledge as well as the possibility of altered political practices. It is no coincidence that the geohumanities are forcefully emerging at a time of immense intellectual and social change. This book focuses on a range of topics to address urgent contemporary imperatives, such as the link between creativity and place; altered practices of spatial literacy; the increasing complexity of visual representation in art, culture, and science and the ubiquitous presence of geospatial technologies in the Information Age.

GeoHumanties is essential reading for students wishing to understand the intellectual trends and forces driving scholarship and research at the intersections of geography and the humanities disciplines. These trends hold far-reaching implications for future work in these disciplines, and for understanding the changes gripping our societies and our globalizing world.

About the AuthorsMichael Dear is Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California Berkeley. His interests are in comparative urbanism and the US-Mexico borderlands. Recent publications include: Urban Latino Cultures; la vida latina en L.A., The Postmodern Urban Condition, and Postborder City: cultural spaces of Bajalta California.

Jim Ketchum is special projects coordinator and newsletter editor for the Association of American Geographers in Washington, D.C. A cultural geographer with interests in contemporary art and visual culture, his research examines the ways that artists use geographic perspectives and technologies in responding to war. He received his PhD from Syracuse University in 2005.

Sarah Luria is Associate Professor of English at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. She is the author of Capital Speculations: Writing and Building Washington, D.C. (University of New Hampshire Press, 2006). Her current book project is a study of land surveying and property making in the work of Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, and Robert Moses.

Doug Richardson is Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers (AAG). He previously founded and was President of the firm GeoResearch, Inc., which invented, developed, and patented the first interactive GPS/GIS (global positioning system/geographic information system) technology, leading to major advances in the ways geographic information is collected, mapped, integrated, and used within geography and in society at large. He has worked closely with American Indian tribes for over twenty years on cultural and ecological issues, and is the Project Director of the AAG’s National Endowment for the Humanities funded Historical GIS Clearinghouse and Online Research Forum.

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/25/7599/feed/0The Aphid Invasion of the Escarolehttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/22/7583/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/22/7583/#respondMon, 23 May 2011 02:14:32 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7583For the last month my broadleaf escarole plant (an Endive, or type of Chicory) on my balcony has been invaded by tiny insects. Mostly aphids, I believe. I opted to not use any pesticides or neem oil to remove the infestation simply to see what damage such pests can do to the quasi-everlasting plant.

This morning when I went to my backyard I noticed the glass vase moving around on the ground. Upon seeing that it was actually a Mourning Dove stuck in a glass vase, I quickly ran upstairs and got my camera so I could film my attempt at freeing the stuck bird….

]]>http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/18/7533/feed/0Photographs of Pink Green Bean Flowers, Basil, and Smokey Bronze Fennelhttp://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/14/7524/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/05/14/7524/#respondSun, 15 May 2011 03:23:14 +0000http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/?p=7524Tonight I took some more photographs of the “VIP” (very important plants) that I’m growing in my bedroom. I look forward to planting these outdoors later this month.

Close-up Photograph of the pink Green Bean Flower

Photograph of a baby Smokey Bronze Fennel in the foreground, green beans on the right, and basil in the background.